To Be or Not to Be An Equal Member of the Community of Thinkers: Reflections on the fallaciousness of ad hominem and critical thinking education

摘要

The traditional view that ad hominem arguments are fallacious has recently come under criticism on the grounds that, given that we often find ourselves in circumstances of limited time, expertise, and informational resources, it is often rational to invoke an arguer's personal characteristics in evaluating their argument. I argue that this misses the point about the ad hominem fallacy. Arguments against the person are fallacious not in the context of one deciding what to believe in limited circumstances, but in the context of a debate whose terms are set by the intentions of the participants. Nevertheless, the critics still have a point, for there are many contexts in which invoking an arguer's personal characteristics can be rational. This raises a dilemma for critical thinking education: Should its purpose be to teach "real-world" rational life skills, or to train people to be Equal Members of a Community of Thinkers?